MisterE Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 they do but it just seems far reaching to apply and use those models as a foundation to predict something like this. but yeah im done too because i've nozzled up this thread enough with my anti science ways i'll be sure to come back in, 10, 15, 20 yrs to bump this thread back up from my abacus pc in a cave somewhere to apologize. after the fall of.. excuse me, collapse of society Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 So when old Rome collapsed, mankind collapsed as well? Or ancient Egypt? Maya? I guess we've had numerous periods where dinosaurs took over the planet again after all those collapsing mankinds ... *Logic 'society equals mankind' exits window* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
usagi Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 but yeah im done too because i've nozzled up this thread enough with my anti science ways to be clear, I said nothing about your views. I just think you could be a little less unnecessarily provocative with your disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 So when old Rome collapsed, mankind collapsed as well? Or ancient Egypt? Maya? I guess we've had numerous periods where dinosaurs took over the planet again after all those collapsing mankinds ... *Logic 'society equals mankind' exits window* it's different now. the population has been exponentially growing since those days, and the mayans, egyptians, and romans weren't fracking. of course in the energy thread good arguments are made on fracking's behalf. it seems to be the reason that gas and food prices are not significantly higher. be that as it may, it involves pumping massive amounts of poisons deep into the earth. can you do it once and have it be fine? yeah i guess. can you do it a million times and have it be fine? i doubt it. we all know how lazy, regardless, immoral and unethical humans are prone to being, and humans are the ones "carefully" pumping of large amounts of poisons into the earth. maybe the amount of fracking that's been done up to this point will prove harmless or to have only caused a minimal amount of harm, but what about when traditional oil fields dry up further, and the necessity is more dire, and the fracking is done more haphazardly? i'm talking 50, a hundred years down the line. certainly in countries other than the united states at least oversight and regulation will be more lax. that is only one example of environmental doom we are actually facing. others, like the numerous ways we are destroying the ecosystems of the ocean, and the effect of carbon emissions on climate change, compound the threat that each other pose to human life and other forms of life. would some humans survive the worst scenarios? sure, maybe some, maybe a significant fraction. but why insist on such unprecedented cataclysm? also, don't underestimate how the world will change when the gas runs out. how responsible and careful will the nuclear powers be 50 years after civilization has become a hodge-podge of 19th century living and a super-powerful military class? please don't espouse the idea that no one needs to be concerned about such things. sure, many disingenuous and powerful people will wield ideas and fears for nefarious purposes, but that doesn't negate facts based soundly on scientific, clear reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fiznuthian Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 I think historically it was a lot less likely for mankind to die, and instead societies would collapse to be replaced. Times have changed, however, and in or nuclear age is not as easy to keep a blind eye to the possibility. Nation states arm themselves with the capability to make the planet uninhabitable. How much longer until our history book ends? Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 lol fracking hasn't kept food prices down. oh my. next they'll be adding it to the list of disney princesses. Frackonella, from the princess and the smog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 lol fracking hasn't kept food prices down. oh my. next they'll be adding it to the list of disney princesses. Frackonella, from the princess and the smog. food is trucked to stores, and fracking has impacted gas prices for the better. this is important to note, we are becoming addicted to fracking, which hundreds of years down the line could actually poison the planet. maybe some fucking species will evolve that can live in our wasteland, so i guess it's ok. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goDel Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Uehm, I guess I should reread the article again, because I really assumed it to be about similarities in the rise and fall of various societies from the past, in comparison to our current western society. Nothing about an apocalypse, other than "the fall of what is now the west" and when that might happen. Whatever that may entail. One certainty is that planet Earth will survive. And odds are there'll still be plenty of people left in a post western world. FWIW: there have been plenty societies still in existence which used to rule over the known world. The Brits being an obvious example of a once all powerful and dominant ruler of the world. And now? Well, they tend to create good musics... But nothing to be apocalyptic about. ;D Edit: point being: i guess there's something missing in my coffee because i don't really understand why all these apocalyptic hyperboles are flying about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
may be rude Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 you're right, the thread took a turn as watmm threads do. not an irrelevant one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerWaschbar Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 you're right, the thread took a turn as watmm threads do. not an irrelevant one. Wrong. Forced sterilization is the only way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Candiru Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 Perhaps it is time to implement alternative energy sources. Let's start introducing them now. Sure, your evil oil empire might not make that quarterly bump, but shit man. Think of the children. Even if it means your great grandson will be $1 billion short of making it onto the spaceship that leaves earth for a utopian planet totally populated by hot space bitches. Fuckin Scrooges Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chenGOD Posted March 25, 2014 Share Posted March 25, 2014 apparently the UN is in on it. Global warming means food, water shortages warns UN report this UN? Yes clearly a program that was introduced by the US 19 years ago is extremely relevant to the UN today. Never mind that the Secretary General has changed twice since that bill was introduced (and it wasn't even introduced by the UN), they're exactly the same. Also you haven't done a goddamn thing to question the NASA study.* You've erected a strawman whereby your perverted vision of what a "leftist" looks like (they're all the same don't you know) somehow convinces the government and elites to start hoarding supplies. Fucks sake, at least try and maintain a modicum of reality when making an argument. *please note this statement does not signal agreement with the NASA study's conclusion. my argument was simply to counter the suggestion that the UN being involved in some form of corrupt happenings is absurd. my point was made. i didn't say that that proved they WERE involved in something here. VH bringing them up 'oh apparently the UN is also involved' was presented as if the idea becomes ridiculous because the UN could never be involved in something like that. look at the magnitude of corruption in the oil for food program and all the ways it was gamed, by some of the people who set it up. and you can say it was however many years ago but so fucking what? many of the people involved in that scandal totally got off the hook. some of the investigations INTO the scandal were handled BY the UN. to some degree, it IS still the same organization, in the sense that the united states is still the same country as it was then, with the same form of government, the same capacity for corruption, and the same agendas. your whole post is just a lot of anger towards me and pretty much no substance. and btw it was introduced 19 yrs ago but it continued up to 2003. i don't have to counter the study. its some math used to predict the fall of mankind. you want to believe that shit makes sense go ahead. too bad this math guy wasn't around to predict the rise of hitler back before ww2. and also limpy pointed out that the way shit goes doesn't only come down to the millions of individual people involved, but also the scientific solutions that might come up to deal with problems. you think some guy can predict all that with math, there are plenty of great programs about ufos and pyramids on the history channel you might be interested in. Your argument wasn't very clear. And where did I ever say corruption wasn't a problem? Also please note the note at the bottom of my original post where I state I don't necessarily agree with the nasa study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.